J.S. v. Scarsdale Union Free School District, 826 F. Supp. 2d 635

J.G., a student with emotional difficulties, attended Scarsdale public schools through early 2008 before her withdrawal for private placement; the Parents sought tuition reimbursement under IDEA for J.G.’s private schooling April 4, 2008–June 30, 2009.
The District conducted no private evaluation before J.G.’s withdrawal; J.G. was later placed at True North Wilderness Program and Montana Academy (MA) by her Parents.
A CSE convened in April 2008, recommending an out-of-district, highly structured program ( Summit) and therapy; MA and True North were not the District’s proposed placements.
The IHO (2009) denied reimbursement, finding Summit not proven appropriate and MA appropriate, and equities did not favor reimbursement due to parental cooperation issues.
The SRO affirmed the IHO on most points but found Summit record’s sufficiency lacking; the case was then litigated in federal court, which granted partial summary judgment to Parents (25% reimbursement) and denied District’s motion.
The court held that the District retained some obligation to provide a FAPE to J.G. resident in New York, despite parental private placement, and balanced equities to determine partial reimbursement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District had a pre-withdrawal child-find obligation for J.G.	District failed to identify J.G. timely.	No pre-withdrawal obligation; child-find triggered later.	District had no pre-withdrawal obligation; review upheld IHO as to child-find.
Whether the District provided a FAPE to J.G. through the April/June 2008 IEP and Summit placement.	IEP and Summit placement could meet J.G.’s needs.	Record insufficient to prove Summit could implement the IEP.	IEP adequate on its face; Summit’s appropriateness not proven in record.
Whether MA was an appropriate private placement for J.G. and thus reimbursable.	MA provided meaningful academic and therapeutic gains.	MA’s program effectiveness and applicability to J.G. were not adequately shown.	MA was appropriate; reimbursement warranted but limited by equitable factors.
Whether equitable considerations justify partial reimbursement given parental conduct.	Parents cooperated and acted in good faith under medical advice.	Parents unilaterally withdrew and delayed notice; limited cooperation.	Equities reduce reimbursement to 25%.
What is the district-of-residence's responsibility after private placement.	District of residence retains obligation to provide FAPE.		District of residence retains some obligation; not fully divested.

Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (tuition reimbursement available even when child never received public education before)
Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (private placement reimbursement when district failed to provide FAPE)
Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (public education requirements; equity considerations in relief)
Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (definition of FAPE and benefit standard under IDEA)
Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (burden on the district to show IEP appropriateness; unilateral placement burden on parents)
T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009) (IEP reasonableness and placement sufficiency; non-per se rule for sites)
Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (equities can bar reimbursement where parents’ conduct warrants)
Lillbask ex rel. Mauclaire v. Conn. Dep’t of Educ., 397 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (administrative deference; standard for evaluating record support)